I read through that whole article trying to find supporting facts for the headline's claim "soars out of Musk's shadow" but found nothing. Other than they decided to be content at the little rocket's table.

Perhaps this could have been better worded thusly "Orbital Sciences gives up trying to make it on their own and makes plans to merge with Alliant Techsystem. Investors are happy the company may not go belly up after all."

I consider this good news. Competition is good & Orbital needed to do something. They have a limited supply of their first stage engines for Antares (that's why they wanted to start buying the RD-180, but got rejected). Their second stage is already powered by an ATK engine. I have no great love of ATK (for what are basically political reasons), but their engines have a pretty good record (with one obvious exception that was dealt with nearly 3 decades ago).

Maybe they will end up serving that market that SpaceX skipped over when they dropped the Falcon 1e.

GleeUnit:way south: this more sounds like the big threes plan to hobble Spacex.

Explain?

The secret of Elons success seems to be in mass production. For this to work he needs payloads. Doesn't matter where they go or how big they are as his boosters can restart and deliver multiple sats per shot. He can also stack boosters for more power than anything else on the market.Hence the complaining when ULA got a bunch of launches with no competition. SpaceX might be able to do it cheaper and better but never got a chance to make a pitch. The government was more interested in preserving capability with companies that have a long standing history in it (a corrupt sweetheart deal for Lockheed and Boeing).

Lockheed Boeing and ATKwere the final three involved with launching the shuttles, and ATK in particular was left out in the cold when both the shuttle and constellation were cancelled. Alliant made a play for CCDEV but failed (SpaceX won in the second round). They also made a pitch for COTS and failed (Orbital and SpaceX won).

So as it stands we have SpaceX with the most versatile cargo delivery vehicle (two way trips, more cargo than progress and Cygnus) and also with the most adaptable and soon to be least expensive booster.With Russia being an ass, SpaceX will be the go-to company for manned launches with Dragon 2.0.Orbitals system needs Russian parts and that stock is now frozen. If Dragon becomes a cheap and reliable launcher of men and equipment then the future of SLS is in serious question.

SpaceX wins everything. Elon and his white cat retire to an evil villain's lair on mars.

[Conspiracy theory follows]

So here comes ATK to the rescue in Orbitals engine debacle. Focusing on smaller payloads they front themselves as having another capability that must be preserved by the fed. With ULA taking the big launches and ATK/Orbital taking the small ones, its food out of Elons mouth and he can't hit the necessary production goals on falcon.

SpaceX's growth is stumped by lack of payloads (payloads redirected by corruption) until SLS goes live, and (as the official shuttle replacement) becomes an unkillable rocket to nowhere. We go on another thirty year trip to orbit and occasionally blow up some astronauts for moon rocket prices.

SpaceX loses while billions continue to pour into Lockheed, Boeing and ATK.All without the risk of having to develop new ships or hit specific goals.

/its the circle of LIIIIIIIIFE./We now return you to what has surely become a KSP thread while I was typing this.

My favorite thing about OSC is that they apparently got the right to name the street their headquarters is located on just off Rt 28 in Ashburn, which means when I drive that road i am confronted with a giant Green Highway exit sign that reads "Warp Drive"

I was trying to explain the awesomeness that is Elon Musk the other day to my wife. She listened attentively, nodded when appropriate and then said, "That's all great, but he needs a new farking name. That name is ridiculous."

The secret of Elons success seems to be in mass production. For this to work he needs payloads. Doesn't matter where they go or how big they are as his boosters can restart and deliver multiple sats per shot. He can also stack boosters for more power than anything else on the market.Hence the complaining when ULA got a bunch of launches with no competition. SpaceX might be able to do it cheaper and better but never got a chance to make a pitch. The government was more interested in preserving capability with companies that have a long standing history in it (a corrupt sweetheart deal for Lockheed and Boeing).

1) size and destination absolutely matter, and SpaceX has only a single configuration to offer (no solid rocket boosters, no 'heavy' version, no light version anymore for that matter) and only a few flights so far that barely scratch the surface of possible missions they'd have to fly.

2) the boosters can restart but this has nothing to do with multiple payloads, which has already be done by the way

3) yeah he can "stack" boosters by strapping them together like the Delta IV heavy, but this is not trivial and has not been built or flight tested

4) cheaper but not necessarily better. you get what you pay for

that said, I support what SpaceX is trying to do, but there's a lot more to space missions than just cargo trips to the ISS, no amount of whining will change that

mongbiohazard:I was trying to explain the awesomeness that is Elon Musk the other day to my wife. She listened attentively, nodded when appropriate and then said, "That's all great, but he needs a new farking name. That name is ridiculous."

A New Farking User Name, perhaps?

/how does a a kerbal push a ship? Using his jetpack?//Whackjob, try to create a giant ship that also has a K-Drive. that would be terrifying

way south:Orbitals system needs Russian parts and that stock is now frozen.

If I did my math right Aerojet has enough NK-33s remaining to launch another 14 Antares rockets, so they're good for a while.

As soon as SpaceX relaunches it's first booster, the whole playing field is going to shift. It won't matter what the big three do after that because they won't be able to compete on price unless they innovate. That's something they haven't done for a while in the rocket industry. ULA doesn't even make an attempt to compete on price now. It'll be interesting to see what they do when they start getting hungry.

The secret of Elons success seems to be in mass production. For this to work he needs payloads. Doesn't matter where they go or how big they are as his boosters can restart and deliver multiple sats per shot. He can also stack boosters for more power than anything else on the market.Hence the complaining when ULA got a bunch of launches with no competition. SpaceX might be able to do it cheaper and better but never got a chance to make a pitch. The government was more interested in preserving capability with companies that have a long standing history in it (a corrupt sweetheart deal for Lockheed and Boeing).

1) size and destination absolutely matter, and SpaceX has only a single configuration to offer (no solid rocket boosters, no 'heavy' version, no light version anymore for that matter) and only a few flights so far that barely scratch the surface of possible missions they'd have to fly.

2) the boosters can restart but this has nothing to do with multiple payloads, which has already be done by the way

3) yeah he can "stack" boosters by strapping them together like the Delta IV heavy, but this is not trivial and has not been built or flight tested

4) cheaper but not necessarily better. you get what you pay for

that said, I support what SpaceX is trying to do, but there's a lot more to space missions than just cargo trips to the ISS, no amount of whining will change that

The Falcon Heavy version is slated for launch next year, largest thing going.The timing should have warranted consideration at least. The launch manifest of ULA wasn't going to accommodate the new contract any sooner. They could have waited a few months before signing off dozens of launches on last years rockets.

The ability to restart means one booster can launch multiple payloads to slightly different orbits, which they have done. You no longer need a variety of small boosters if you can share space on a larger rocket and get to the same destination.There's an argument to be made for the timeliness of the flight but even a Pegasus takes years to plan (and the payload is tiny).

If the rocket is just as reliable and has a competitive heft then cheaper is a kind of better.You're paying a moving company and guys in tee shirts do the same job as unionized guys in matching jump suits. So long as your stuff gets there on time and intact there is no major difference in who does it.

StopLurkListen:hardinparamedic: way south: The Falcon Heavy version is slated for launch next year, largest thing going.

The Falcon Heavy still pales in comparison to Saturn V 2.0 (Erm, I mean SLS)

Wow, you're not kidding. What is that monster...

That's an interesting image. I'm guessing it must be dated considering the Falcon Heavy will lift twice the payload mass that the shuttle could lift to LEO.

At one point they were considering replacing the SLS block 2 solid rocket boosters with liquid engines possibly powered with an F1 derivative. I haven't heard anything lately though. I think they are more concerned with getting the block 1 to fly at this point. They may have been using it as a ploy to dicker with ATK over price. After all, a perchlorate engine isn't the most challenging thing to make.

SewerSquirrels:I consider this good news. Competition is good & Orbital needed to do something. They have a limited supply of their first stage engines for Antares (that's why they wanted to start buying the RD-180, but got rejected). Their second stage is already powered by an ATK engine. I have no great love of ATK (for what are basically political reasons), but their engines have a pretty good record (with one obvious exception that was dealt with nearly 3 decades ago).

Maybe they will end up serving that market that SpaceX skipped over when they dropped the Falcon 1e.

It would have been better news if Orbital, who was the original private space enterprise 30 years ago with Pegaus, hadn't just wussied out of direct competition in manned flight.

SewerSquirrels:At one point they were considering replacing the SLS block 2 solid rocket boosters with liquid engines possibly powered with an F1 derivative. I haven't heard anything lately though. I think they are more concerned with getting the block 1 to fly at this point. They may have been using it as a ploy to dicker with ATK over price. After all, a perchlorate engine isn't the most challenging thing to make.

Which was not unique - the Saturn-series of rockets, and to a lesser extent the Shuttle were both capable of recovering from engine failures. The thing is that they did it commercially, which was an absolute first.

studebaker hoch:So I'm wondering if SpaceX, once its ships are man-rated, won't just go out to the Moon some weekend, scoop up some rocks and dirt, and come back home just to do it?

Because landing on the moon and then successfully returning to Earth is a good deal different in real life than in Kerbal Space Program, and the Dragon Capsule still has to ascend from the moon and burn for a return orbit to Earth. In addition, the Falcon 9 Heavy's GTO/LTO payload capacity is 19.5 thousand kilograms. The entire Apollo CSM-LM system weighed around 30kg. In addition, SpaceX does not have the infrastructure to support a trip to the moon at this time. Apollo's flight alone involved almost 20,000 people in various tracking, communications, and recovery operations, with tracking stations and ships all over the world.

SpaceX's ships are also going to be man-rated only to Earth Orbit operations.

studebaker hoch:Once the re-usable rocket is reality, Elon could go out there anytime he wants.

I have a lot of respect for Elon, but no, he won't. There will still be a LOT of red tape and Government oversight on missions to the Moon, and even Mars.

hardinparamedic:From what I understand, there is a competition underway to design a new, reusable solid rocket booster for the block 2 system.

That's interesting. I have a friend who is on the team developing the SLS & he told me (a couple years ago) that they decided to trade reusability for performance on the SRBs. Apparently there was no discernible cost benefit to refurbishing over just building new ones and the recovery system was surprisingly heavy.

According to your link, the competition isn't limited to solid fueled boosters. I think it might make more senses to reuse liquid boosters if at all.